So good and goodness great
cherry picked, questionable content
this podcast is presented as a scientific podcast, however wendy comes to the show with an opinion already formed, and refuses to budge. she chooses all studies that support her view and ONLY her view, and only interviews those who will prove her point. she mocks the other side of the argument rather than trying to refute it or listen to the facts of someone else’s argument.
not only this, but in the end the podcast is NOT WORTH IT. the content is found to be lacking. so many of the topics are mediocre at best and she covers her biased, half done work with sound effects and cutesy music. her voice drips with fake happiness that makes the podcast unbearable, when she isn’t trying to charm you init agreeing with her she is blasting unnecessary music and sound effects to catch your attention.
would not recommend to anyone unless you are looking for contentless, biased, effortless work.
Cherry picking studies, has an agenda
This podcast came off as a good educational podcast the first couple episodes I listened to, and then I realized how truly cherry picked the studies, and scientists they interview are, they literally go around science to keep to their agenda quite often. They will ignore 90% of studies in a topic they are covering, and chose the 10% that helps them push their agenda. Perfect example here,
On the “science vs vegans” episode, they talk to a “nutritionist” that is referring to “studies” that claim that all vegans are vitamin D deficient, and deficient in B-12, but doesn’t mention that the studies that are the most reliable in that topic, prove, with over 50,000 people in the studies, that 60-70% of Americans are vitamin D deficient, and over 80% of all African Americans are vitamin D deficient, on top of that over 50% of Americans are deficient in B-12, and over 55 years of age over 60% of Americans are, and it continues to go up as the age does. Also the “nutritionist” says you “need” to get B-12 from meat, doesn’t mention that literally all factory farm animals are fed and injected with B-12 because they too are deficient because the soil microbes that create it are almost non existent on this planet now. Also doesn’t mention at all that “hey you can get B-12 from vegan supplements, which is what is fed to the animals, and you could just go straight to the source rather than using a 2 step process to get it”. Massive manipulation of information and choosing incorrectly done studies, and pushing their agenda. I’ve seen it in at least 3 different episodes now, especially with diet and the environment, they don’t give a rats a** about helping the environment, only care about telling people what they want to hear, and Wendy is “skeptical” (so she says) in a very cherry picked way. No logical consistency, no ethical consistency, no moral consistency, just a truly manipulative podcast, telling people what sounds good and what they want to hear so they don’t feel bad about their lifestyle choices.
Liberal nonsense but interesting at times
It’s interesting to hear some of the research on these issues, but the host interprets it in a liberal, biased way.
I love it
science vs lover
This gives me something interesting and educational to listen to.
teo del fuego
In terms of content, the podcast is okay. Wendy's over the top enunciation and desire to add a million volts of cutesy energy and excitement to every single sentence she speaks is so irritating and exhausting, I just cannot listen to this. If she could just take some Valium and try to speak in a conversational tone, I would enjoy the podcast. As is, it's like listening to an hour of used car radio adverts with those phony, contorted voices.
Use Your Head — Good Information
Some have complained about the agenda of this podcast and says that it is telling people what to think and mocking alternate evidence. Actually, I think it’s trying to present balanced and objective information. If there is an agenda I don’t necessarily see it. What is it? Perhaps it changes with each podcast? If you don’t agree that’s your prerogative and that’s why you have a brain. Nobody tells you what to think, but this podcast presents useful information and is well worth a serious listen.
This podcast definitely has an agenda to push. It quotes scientific information and then tells you how you SHOULD interpret it (and mockingly references any other interpretations of said data that doesn’t support her opinion). This isn’t a science lesson - what is shared or talked about respectfully is handpicked to support what she wants to prove. The sound effects in the background to set apart things ‘not proven’ are a great idea in theory, but don’t play a silly voice anytime you don’t agree with what is being said.
So obviously cherry picked to support the preselected view. For the randomly chosen ones I made it through it was easy to switch it around to the other side- in fact, there's MORE evidence for that side than the other.
Wendy and team of decision makers need to crawl back into their cave and only be allowed out when they understand how to balance one set of data against another.
Note to other reviewers: Sexy Aussie accent be damned. If that's a selling point it's no stronger than any other.
Extremely entertaining and informative
Very informative pod cast
Each episode is very informative and has been researched and the people they interview are usually at the top of their field I liked it a lot
Great podcast! Its super fun.
I love this show the format and the information is great. I've listened to about 7-8 podcasts and so far have enjoyed all of them. I'm going to doubt check there studies and the process by which they get there information. #peerreview. I do wish they would do a podcast about themselves and their process in order to find out more about their process. Overall it's a great show and I do enjoy there commentary.
Show is Surprising
Long Time Max PC Subscriber
Very good unbiased podcast, it ignores preconceived notions and challenges the way you've tought about subjects.
Uses only facts to come to conclusions that might surprise you.
Started out strong but fizzled
The first season was great even though a lot of the material was debatable. It's obvious Wendy has sold out since moving to a new producer. The show is rife with falsities and the content covered is not as interesting. I've noticed a lot of radio jockey antics as well with annoying sound bites and gimmicks.
Great, but not entirely scientific in its execution
Ok, so I love this podcast - and I love science! However, although I ideologically I agree with most of its 'conclusions', as a 'scientist' I have to object to its obvious bias on certain issues.
For example, it concludes that there is no substantial evidence to prove the claims of attachment parenting advocates, so it declares the theory debunked. I don't personally believe in this style of parenting either and I agree that its proliferation in popular culture puts undue strain on parents. However the fact that there is currently no evidence to prove a theory does not disprove the theory. That's just how science works. Things are true when they're proven to be, but until then you kinda have to leave it up for grabs either way.
Anyway, that's just one little thing that bugs me about this podcast. They go to such lengths for 'good' science, but it seems their marketers' need to have a pithy conclusion gets the better of them in the end.
The podcaster's attention to detail is lacking, and often it seems in the service of the shows conceit of Science Vs whatever they are trying to debunk. But because the key to shedding light on something in a new way is to use convincing details and without rigor, the formula falls flat.
This podcast is okay, but it's very surface-level. :/
A deeper dive than ordinary news
I just recently came across this podcast while looking for something in the science realm. I really like the cross-section of topics that are covered. One week it's hypnotism, and the next week it's the Zika virus. I have to admit I really like listening to Wendy's voice and enjoy the puns she interjects into her production. Give it a try, I'm sure there's a topic with at least some interest to everyone.
Good info, clever presentation
The host has a clear bias, and it's frustrating that it's portrayed as "science," which is inherently objective. Get a different host, maybe it'll work
Too much fluff not enough substance. Lacking in critical thinking
Very entertaining. Can't wait till next season.
Wendy and her team are entertaining and fun. Great work!
Easy to follow. Wendy is quirky and smart. She is very objective in her interviews and let's the listener hear all sides of the story. It's great for anyone who's sick of hearing others' opinions about things they don't know anything about. Let's just get the science of it!
A vast shortcoming - specifically on the Paleo diet episode. She literally asks two people what they think about the Paleo diet and the entire argument is based on the that. This episode fails to really dig into the practices of actual modern Paleocentric eaters.
It seems like she's pretty stuck on thinking Paleo means people eat exactly as our Paleolithic ancestors did rather than looking at how that actually translates in day to day life (more greens, lean meat, less processed foods)
Two thumbs down. However I enjoyed Darryl Edwards
G Spot episode made me a fan
OMG. I am a podcast junkie and THIS is an utterly groundbreaking podcast episode. I hadnt been interested in Science Vs until now. Now I'm totally hooked. And blown away. This episode absolutely MUST, and I mean MUST, win all kinds of podcasting awards. It should be broadcast so that every single woman and man in the world can hear it, in English and in translation. THANK YOU, GIMLET MEDIA and Wendy Zuckerburg. YOU GUYS ROCK.
Entertaining - like pop rocks for the ears
A zippy, humorous and witty attack on things we always wonder about. Anybody who questions the "bias" in some of the reviews needs to lighten up And realize that everything has some bias and this isn't meant to be a peer review paper. Those are boring, this is not. Plus Wendy's accent is so over the top (and I live with an Aussie) it makes everything sound fascinating!
Women watch porn too
I just started listening to this podcast, and overall think it's great.
The episode focused on porn focused almost exclusively on men consuming porn, and the influence of porn on men. To make things worse, nowhere in the episode was this imbalance even acknowledged! Super disappointing.
I'd love to see a follow-up episode where this is addressed. Presenting an episode on porn that reinforces the stereotype that porn is a men's issue, for men, impacting men, and leaving women invisible is sexist. Please do better in the future.
Love it. Fun presentation. Relax "experts"
Lay pragmatism not intended to be a full peer review exposition. Very enjoyable listen and just enough context for reality check on hot topics.
While it is well produced and would be entertaining the show seems one sided sometimes. The bias is clear in a few episodes. When the science is inconclusive Zukerman just sort of picks a side and says it wins. It is very clear in the female brain episode, and noticeable in the guns episode among other places.
Statistics not really science.
come on, gimlet
maybe i shouldn't be surprised that political opinion is presented as scientific fact more often than it should be. but still, i was hopeful. the propaganda of opinion presented as science is delightful if want a good laugh though. but who knows, maybe the producers intended it to be a meta inverse comedy style pseudo science show...
Wish they were longer & had Podcast chapters (GarageBand 6.0.5) but nevertheless, love this podcast. Excited for season 2.
Fun science driven format and good host.
The show is good
Jeremy M James
I like it so far.
Too much talking
Sheep In Wolf's Clothing
I know, sounds ridiculous to have too much taking in a podcast. But it just sounds like I'm hearing too much script-reading from the host, not enough backing evidence from the experts. It's like "Wikipedia, the Podcast."
Way better than I thought
I expected boring, but the shows were thought-provoking and insightful. I ended up listening to all the episodes. Fun, too. Excellent host.
Good Concept, Poor Reporting
The reporting on health issues (Paleo Diet, Sugar) are just perpetuating poor dietary pseudoscience and not challenging listeners to rethink what they're eating. She's comparing country dietary guidelines to compare what's "healthy" and totally missing the mark. Guests are so biased and make overarching statements, which the host continues to stretch conclusions. The actually accurate, helpful guests are basically dismissed by the reporter. I thought this would be a fun podcast to listen to, but with such biased stances, I won't continue to listen. A shame, as the reporter is pleasing to listen to, but the content is a no-go.
This is a sham. Very biased, doesn't cite studies or researchers. This is opinion masquerading as science. Be wary.
Ugh. Biased, painful to listen to
For a show that is supposed to focus on science this has way too much bias in the tone and presentation. Its really obvious that the host is on a warpath with each issue. Just couldn't handle it.
Maybe better titled "A subjunctive analysis Vs"
For transparency's sake, I only went through the first three episodes.
I felt the author's opinion was interjected into the content quite heavily. It isn't that she is necessarily wrong, and my opinion aligns with her own on several issues. Of course, there is a difference between objective science and my (or Wendy's) opinion.
Not necessarily a bad listen, but different from what was advertised.
The 'race' episode sucked lots of balls. Who the $@&& would make the order of the races?🔫😡
Worth the time
Podcasts come and go. So I decided to add this to my line-up and hope it stays. Really like Gimlet media, they are shaping the technology.
Not really science
Came looking for a good level headed discussion. Got puns, sarcasm and light hearted fluff stuff.
Stick to the smaller shows if your looking to learn and have a real discussion. Guess I should have had lower expectations from a pop podcasting company trying to make itself relevant
Hate Science, Love Science VS
In high school, I somehow weaseled my way into honors biology. I got a C+ despite cheating on every test. I went on to take physical science and earth science, then 3 courses of earth science in college to complete my credits. Not once in all of that did I ever enjoy science. And then this podcast came along. The ABC Radio network is putting together some wonderful content (check out Joel Werner’s story “An Unusual Pattern” in the What’s the Point? feed for a science-data mashup), and the host Wendy Zukerman is charming as hell. Can’t wait until this reboots at Gimlet Media.
confirmation bias much?
listened to three episodes, and it was clear that the show seems to be a personal exploration by the host into how far confirmation bias can go. premise is great, but just seems to be pop journalism.
Loving this podcast. Great production, voice, and topics and I can't wait for season 2. Thank you!
Terrible terrible terrible
I was so excited when I found this podcast. But it's just as bad as every other opinion based article out there... I'm so upset gimlet picked this up.. I love gimlet media, but this was a terrible decision.